alright, so ive only been playing for a little over a year, but of the folks ive played with ive always done pretty damn well and never lost a 1v1 game. but usually as allies, what i end up doing usually looks alot like what actually happened in ww2….i actually start in the pacific taking islands holding the japs back on the mainland and make dual assaults on europe from GB and africa…anyone else actually island hop? all that needs to be done is the US an GB to build air force in the pacific to take out the jap navy. and BAM
anyone else actually do this sort of jazz?
all that needs to be done is the US an GB to build air force in the pacific to take out the jap navy. and BAM
Two points of interest:
Where (how) is the UK building an air force in the Pacific?
While the US is building AF in the Pacific, what is the Japanese navy doing?
The only place I see the UK building an air force is out of India… building an IC in India is basically inviting the Japanese to take it by J3 at the latest and have a free IC on the mainland (plus without India troops you most likely don’t have Africa) and with the US building a navy they cannot committ the kinds of troops really needed to take Africa back for the Brits.
I’m not saying Island hop can’t be done, but at the same time, with Japan going off on the mainland, how are you holding them back? If i see the US going navy in the PAC, I send the whole Jap fleet to waste it. The British can’t get much of an AF going with India gone and most of Africa as well… maybe you’ve got a different strat going on with builds? Also, how isn’t Germany in Moscow without support to Russia from the allies?
Just a few questions… :-D
i think alot of the time long term strategy, so you would need to build a few infy (or tanks whatever you desire) in india to reinforce….prehaps put pressure on the jap navy with a US navy forcing the japs to focus on the US more than westward expanision. with the Us building thier AF theyre being put on carriers. the first turn if the US builds two carriers and one plane they can have two carriers and a bb off the LA coast in which the japs wont attack (especially if they went after the indian ocean fleet.) either way if the US focuses a fleet early on to go towards the pacific it can make things much harder for the axis.
no offense mofo (please watch your language too) but it sounds like borderline incompetent play from your opponents if you can put an ic in india and slowly reinforce it. it should be gone j3 at the latest and with air and cv purchases in pacific every round germany should be doing unspeakable things to the russians. i love the idea of putting pressure on japan instead of the same ole same ole and would like to hear more. what is japan and germany doing while you go pac wild?
alright first off, i dont think ive said a damn thing that should be “watched”
anyway, the brits can hold mainland asia while the US builds a hella tight navy for island hopping. russia in the mean time is holding off the germans with thier typical build infantry and dance….no matter what germany takes theyll loose it. germany and russia dance like mexicans in a merengue fest while britain holds off/takes on the japs in asia while the US ilsand hops to no end forcing the japs to thier homeland giving the brits a chance to knock on the jerrys with bombers giving the russians a chance to whoopass with infy
Hey mofo, have to agree w/others here who question the quality of your opponents. Isle hopping sounds like grand fun but a G player “worth his salt” will run over USSR if B & US spend their time and resources in Asia/pacific. Maybe this is why you are undefeated 1 vs 1???
with russia if you can leave territories open and have one hell of an infantry force in west russia that will deter any germans….especially if you have some brits tryin to pull a fast one. just dont leave places for the germans to sneak on by to take ICs…then again my friends aint that great players. i mean who the hell would buy tanks when russia has pushed within a space or two of germany. russia can do alot of hurt with no help on thier front if they dance around the germans and force the germans to attack insanely sized stacks of infantry.
Just how do you manage to keep your indian IC? Why don’t you tell me normally what you would have on it by the end of UK3, and I’ll tell you what I could have on it by JP3, and we’ll do a little comparison shopping.
Also, russia should not be able to “dance around germany” for the whole game. Without any allied intervention germany WILL overwhelm russia. With a disparity of 16 IPCs in income, lets say 12, not going anywhere fast, you have 4 extra inf on the side of the germans. That combined with their initial troop superiority will walk through russia if given enough time to do so.
Well, for what it is worth…
I am in a game to Round 6 right now… and only in the last round did the US stop jerking around in the Pacific. And Russia is still standing, and doing half decent too…
alright, well with all that shit goin down in the pacific, we go off to the atlantic where the UK/slight US forces take and hold africa….in which they get to the point where they could back up UK ipc in india. after they get that jenks taken care of and underway. you start usin the US to put the squeeze on the axis. if allies start to have troops in africa going towards the east, theyll fight off the japs. its not hard at all to hold the india IPC…
I find it unlikely that you would be getting support from australia, as I doubt japan will let you do so with an indian IC in place.
So, lets say you have 11 inf, 3 fig, 1 aa. Lets also say you manage to get some US figs over, 2.
In JP1 there are 3 inf,1 art in FIC, 2 originally, 2 from phillipines. Japan builds 3 xports, 1 arm.
In JP2 there are 11 inf in FIC (3 from china, 1 from borneo, 3 from japan), 1 art, 2 arm, 6 figs, 1 bmb. On attack the two inf from east indies could be brought in, and that battle leaves us at about 80%. Of course, if japan buys 2 bombers on round 2, then their win percentage is in the high 90’s.
Obviously you divert japan’s attention, but I still don’t think it’s worth it for the UK. Russia can definitely help out, but with the UK not dumping significant resources into europe, and the US potentially not, their front will definitely be weakened.
the brits could build an IC in aussie land pussing a navy out along with fighters/bombers out of england thus supporting the russians.
I would rate the indian IC as the most valid UK IC. The australian one I would rate as the least valid. I do not see in what capacity you can hope to slow down the japanese by an australian IC. You would not hinder any push to moscow, and if you actually want to use land units you need your transports and a big navy to do so. If you delegate navy building to US, then you still have to wait for them to escort you, and if you build yourself you are still building 2 very expensive units in the far corner of the earth, that are unlikely to have any real effect on the japanese.
An Australian IC can be a good purchase for KJF against a good Japanese player. I don’t usually do it, but It is certainly not as bad as what that guy said.
Good Japanese players can take out India complexes by turn 3-4 if they go after it strong and Germany pressures Russia so much that Russia can’t divert any units down to India to help UK out (which is usually the case).
India IC is worse than Australia IC because if either IC is captured by Japan only the Indian IC can be used to help take Russia. If Japan takes an Australian IC it is worthless to Japan because Japanese units there don’t help to take any new territories (Africa more than 2 SZs away; not worth investment). An Australian IC is only good for taking those Japanese islands, that’s why it’s only good for the Allies. If Japan takes Australia than those Japanese islands are already in Japan’s hands anyway so the effect of Japan taking the IC is mute.
Australian IC is focused on taking back the islands worth 4+4+3+1=12. These islands are so weakly defended that the 1 less unit per turn that is able to purchased in Australia vs. India (2 vs. 3) still doesn’t make India more worth while. I’d rather only build 2 units to take weakly defended islands and force Japan to go where they don’t want to go (onto those islands) than build 3 units to try and butt heads with Japans constant purchases. Every Japanese unit on mainland Asia is a double whammy in favor of Japan. It allows Japan to 1) butt heads against the Indian purchases and 2) place those Japanese units in position to then be used to take the ultimate prize…Moscow. Japanese units on those islands only accomplish the goal of butting heads with UK. Force Japan to go where they don’t want to have to go!
Australian naval units are well protected since they can be built in any of 4 SZs. This freedom of naval placements is bigger than people give it credit for (esp. against good players). No naval placement freedom in India.
With that said I will concede the following points:
-The US player needs to help out Australia by building naval units and sending them to south Pacific. US fighters coupled with Australian infantry make it very hard for Japan to take the IC that far from the island of Japan. Before UK builds a Australian IC, UK needs to clear it first with US.
-The Indian IC is better than Australian IC against bad opponents. I know some people have a problem grasping the concept that the optimal strategy can be different depending on the quality of your opponent but it’s true. Bad players are much less likely to make the proper purchases and movements to take the Indian IC so you don’t have to factor in as much the down side of Japan taking it. This is why the strategy shifts in favor of an India IC against bad opponents.
I can see how you think it might be useful theduke, but I guess I just…don’t. Your points about the indian IC are definitely agreeable, but the reason that I feel the indian IC is better is because, while you are right those troops will be headed there anyway, at least you are taking out a substantial chunk of them and keeping moscow sitting nicely for a few more turns. From my previous posts you can probably tell that I still don’t like it, but it at least accomplishes this.
Australia can definitely be useful in taking back those weak territories, and harassing the japanese. I just don’t see this harassment as worthwhile. While your are nickel and diming japan, you have to build up enough with the US/UK to make any real push past the indies/new guinea viable, since they are two steps away. Thus, this carries with it the normal issue with KJF of allowing Germany to grow ripely, especially with continued UK naval building in the pacific combined with US building. The UK/US pressure on Japan leaves Germany strong. Normally this isn’t quite as much an issue in KJF because the ICs in asia can hold back japan for awhile, and the effort that the UK/US can expend against germany is enough to allow russia to deal with them.
However, if you place the australia IC and devote resources to maintaining it and the navy to effectively harass, you allow asia to fall even more quickly than normal. It still certainly takes japan awhile to march across, but my feeling is that japan will be sitting pretty near russia when germany is. I see how you can use an australian IC, but I don’t see that it is useful. Certainly japan taking it is pretty worthless for them, as you state. But why would they bother? I’ll let the UK keep sinking 16 IPCs into the pacific each round if they want.
good points both of you, personally i like the south african complex. you get two tanks every turn that push germany out of africa then head to asia. meanwhile uk can do its thing in the atlantic against germany with its fleet, not having to worry about their cash being snagged by germany in africa. i was japan once when uk built an aussie complex and i just took it out as soon as i could (round three) but i am intrigued by it and used to build one as uk in classic often just to annoy japan a little
A long term consideration of the S Africa complex- that I’ve gained through experiences both good and bad- a British complex gives you the capacity to produce 10 pieces total. Given competent Axis play, Britain should not be collecting 30 IPCs for very long (sometimes never after the first round). So that means less than 10 Infantry per round. If you’re building anything other than Infantry in S Africa that also means you’re probably getting far less than 10 units- maybe 6 or 7 total.
If I’m the German player the initial 15 IPCs for the complex + the lessened pressure in the north makes me feel more at ease.
On the plus side it will make it more difficult for Japan to get their meathooks into Africa. If you keep your Indian ocean navy lingering in SZ 34 for a time and then move to S Africa with it it’s a potential thorn in Japan’s side.
I’ve definitely tried it and had it work against less experienced players, but even in those situations I could have probably used the IPCs more wisely.
I’m not trying to shoot down the idea, just pointing out the sacrifice that you have to make elsewhere on the game board.
